4.3 Review

Bile acid sequestrants for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIABETES AND ITS COMPLICATIONS
卷 31, 期 5, 页码 918-927

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2017.01.011

关键词

Bile acid sequestrants; Colesevelam; Colestimide; Meta-analysis; Glycemic control; Type 2 diabetes

资金

  1. Amgen
  2. AstraZeneca
  3. Boehringer Ingelheim
  4. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  5. Eli Lilly
  6. MSD/Merck
  7. Novo Nordisk
  8. Sanofi
  9. Zealand Pharma
  10. Novo Nordisk Fonden [NNF15OC0016230, NNF16OC0020224, NNF12OC1015904] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To evaluate the effects of bile acid sequestrants (BASs) versus placebo, no intervention or active comparators on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Methods: Data were retrieved and a systematic review with meta-analyses was performed. We evaluated bias control and subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate heterogeneity and bias. Results: We included 17 trials with a total of 2950 patients randomized to BASs (colesevelam or colestimide) versus placebo, no intervention, statins or sitagliptin. Random-effects meta-analysis showed that patients randomized to BASs had a lower hemoglobin A(1c) at the end of treatment compared with the control group (mean difference - 0.55%; 95% confidence interval - 0.64 to -0.46). Analysis of trials with low risk of bias in all domains confirmed the findings. Data on adverse events were limited. There were no differences between trials stratified by the control group and no evidence of publication bias or small study effects. Conclusions: Our analyses found that BAS treatment improves glycemic controL The size of the effect was clinically relevant and despite limited safety data, our findings support the inclusion of BASs in current diabetes management algorithms for type 2 diabetes. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据